September 27 – Levels of Design, World Views

Norman discusses three levels of design:  visceral, behavioral, and reflective.  As I read these descriptions, I started thinking about the things that I surround myself with in my home – which things appealed to me at which level?  Are there some things that appeal at all levels?  I certainly know the feeling you get when you see something and believe that you must have it.  When I was in my teens, I had part-time jobs and most of my earned money went to purchasing clothing (entertainment as well – but that’s now long gone!).  I can remember seeing a ‘tulip’ coat at Market Mall.  I had no need of a coat, yet when I saw this coat, I simply had to have it.  I loved the colour, the way the collar could be turned up or tucked in, the supple leather inserts on the tops of the sleeves, and the way in which the coat really did resemble a tulip.  It did not matter how much the coat cost, I had to have it, never mind that it was impractical (could not be worn in any kind of damp weather; sleeves just a little bit too short) and costly.  I still have that coat today and take it out to wear from time to time so it has certainly stood the test of time primarily because of its visceral appeal.  Designers who are able to tap into the visceral level certainly seem to have an advantage over others. 

On the other hand, if a product is unable to do what it is intended to do it isn’t of much use.  However, I think of Norman’s lemon juicer – which is not designed to do its intended job, yet it manages to appeal to visceral and reflective levels, so it has endured.  I do have some items in my house that have no visceral appeal, yet behaviorally get full marks.  For example, the 50-year-old pot in my possession that used to be my mother’s.  In my home, we call it the ‘popcorn pot’.  It is old, worn, has a handle that is missing and has been replaced by a corncob holder, yet it is one of our favourite pots to use, particularly for popcorn.  It simply makes better popcorn than any other pot in the cupboard. 

I liked the quote at the beginning of the Norman book, “If you want a golden rule that will fit everybody, this is it:  Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful” (William Morris, “The Beauty of life,” 1880); designers would do well to keep this in mind.

I was interested in the designers that Norman refers to in the book, such as Herbst LaZar Bell, who describe the real challenge to product design as "understanding end-user unmet and unarticulated needs” (p. 74).  And why is this?  “... Because most people are unaware of their true needs, discovering them requires careful observations in their natural environment” (Norman, p. 74).  It is astounding to know that many designers give little thought to people who will be actually using their products – my teapot is a classic example.  When designing it, did anyone ever actually try it out?  It pours beautifully, just don’t put anything hot in it!  I wonder if the mass of ugly, dysfunctional products on the market reflects society on a larger scale and the incredible consumerism that has been adopted by so many.  

I also looked at the IDEO website (well worth a look - check out "The Future of the Book" video on the default page) and linked to a video by Tim Brown who has some interesting ideas about design.  Brown suggests that design thinking begins with integrative thinking – balancing desirability – what humans need with technical feasibility and economic viability.  His basic idea is that design starts with humans, which makes great sense but also begs the question, “Why do so many designs not take into account the human factor?”